The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. On August 13, 2017, at around 21:09, the Defendant: (a) called the victim B ( South, 23 years old) accompanying the same company, called the victim to the above location on the ground that the head of the team failed to meet the self-sufficiency at the time of education; (b) sent the victim to the above location on the ground that the victim B ( South, 23 years old), who was going to the same company, carried the victim into the above location on the part of the victim on the ground that the self-sufficiency was bad; (c) carried the victim’s head of the team; (d) carried the floth, floth, floth, flothed, flothed, flothed, floth to the right shoulder; and (d)

2. The instant case (Assault) is a case in which a public prosecution cannot be instituted against the clearly expressed will of the victim (Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act). However, after the instant public prosecution, the victim expressed his/her intent that he/she does not want the punishment of the Defendant.

Therefore, the prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.